Slashdot Mirror

• First Sale - it's yours
• Freedom of Information - strongest in Finland / Sweden, weakest in UK/France
• Fair Use - the purpose of copyright is to promote science and the useful arts
• Common Carriage - if you carry goods or traffic, it has to be available to all

Digital Restrictions Management technologies threaten to remove all of those above, especially if people just sit back and let monopolies or cartels roll over the market.

Are amendments added to the initial report or substituted for them? e.g. 1998 year end report says $ 2 ,140,00 and the 1998 year end report amendment says $ 1,900,00. Which is it, $1,900,00 or $4,040,000 ?

Nice try, but the treaty has never been submitted to the U.S. Senate for ratification. Even if it had been, Democrats did not control the Senate (which votes on treaties) in 1998, which is the earliest the Clinton Administration could have submitted the Protocol for ratification. (The Dems didn't control the House either for that matter.) The Republicans have held a majority in the Senate since the 104th Congress (elected in 1995) through the 106th Congress, with a tie for the 107th, and then back to full GOP control for the 108th and 109th. The failure of the Senate to ratify Kyoto cannot be laid at the feet of the Democratic Party. There's nothing the Clinton Administration could have done to ensure ratification of Kyoto - The Republican Senators would have committed harakiri before giving Clinton such a victory, particularly considering they were preparing to impeach him at the time.

You can go ahead and try to blame republicans on this one... but the only time this has come up before the Senate (the only body of the US government that can ratify a treaty) the senate passed a resolution effectively demanding that the treaty not be ratified until developing countries are held to the same standards as the US. The vote was 95-0 and I am pretty sure there weren't 95 republicans in the senate at the time. In fact, 40 democrats voted for the resolution and there were 65 co-sponsors of the resolution.

Writing your Senator is nice, writing your Senator who is on the Committee where this bill was referred to is even better...

So if you're from the following states:
Alaska - Arizona - Montana - Mississippi - Texas - Maine - Oregon - Nevada - Virginia - New Hampshire - South Carolina - Louisiana - Hawaii - West Virginia - Massachussetts - North Dakota - California - Florida - Washington - New Jersey - Nebraska - Arkansas...

Step up. No need to be dramatic, just tell it how it is.

http://commerce.senate.gov/about/membership.html

The bill will probably die in committee. As far as I can tell, it hasn't had any kind of hearing yet. You can browse through some related hearings here on other topics.

Almost every hearing regarding the NWS all the testimony about them is nothing but praise.

I also highly doubt that any person from a state with a Gulf or Atlantic border (with the exception of New England) is probably going to be strongly opposed to this change. A large number of small coastal communities rely on the NWS, as well as local news sources which also rely on the NWS for their information.

The bill will be lucky to ever be brought up again.

Santorum's original statement outlining his proposal

Statement from Santorum's office addressing criticism of the proposed legislation

Slashdot discussion of the proposal

Santorum's original statement outlining his proposal

Statement from Santorum's office addressing criticism of the proposed legislation

Slashdot discussion of the proposal

Here's what I told him. Here's where I told it to him.

I'm opposed to your introduction of S.786, the "National Weather Service Duties Act of 2005." Why don't you just label it the "AccuWeather Protection Act of 2005" and get it over with?

The National Weather Service provides accurate, up to date gathering of data and presents forecasts of weather at taxpayers' expense. To prohibit them from disseminating this through public access, and constrain them to "data portals designed for volume access by commercial providers" (Section 2(c)(2)) does a grave disservice to the taxpayers of Pennsylvania and the country in general. What you have done is nothing less than ensure that commercial weather reporting agencies have a taxpayer-funded data source that taxpayers are prohibited from enjoying.

Rest assured I will be monitoring the progress of this bill through the Senate and the House.

uhhh...
http://www.senate.gov/~kohl/press/statements/20053 09430.html
that ain't an idiot like me talking, that's one of your father's former colleagues who said...

"Such blatantly anti-competitive conduct by the oil cartel violates the most basic principles of fair competition and free markets and should not be tolerated."

another opinion on price fixing...
http://slate.msn.com/id/77957/

i am not a conspiracy theorist. i just think that corporations have too much power nowadays and that they have no conscience that tells them what is right and what is wrong. and that the government is not doing its job of protecting the rights of the citizens, and instead has found a higher paying job of doing what corporations want and lying to the public.
an example...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7804770/

it is only logical for corporations to try to fix prices! they are going to do whatever they can to do what they are designed to do...generate more and more profit. getting rid of competition or collaborating with competition will do that for them. that is my reason for thinking there is price/supply fixing. you can say "well, i've seen the inside of government and corporations, and, believe me, there isn't". and, even if you really believe that, i simply will still believe what i believe.

"And then all end up jail. Yeah, right."

okay, i think you're missing one of my points all along. my point, that i'm sure you know, is that things don't work like they do in theory. in theory, those fines from the crimes exxon committed would stop them from doing crimes in the future, but those fines won't. those fines are only another part of the cost/benefit analysis that a company does when it decides to do something. and even fines like $500 million are not enough of a disincentive to deter a company as big as exxon. i think the fines that these companies face should absolutely cripple them. that is the only way that corporate power can be checked, because that is the ONLY thing that it understands, money.

and, if amazon cooked the books, i don't think they would most likely end up in jail...

they might be found not guilty...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8293846/

they might not ever go to trial (5 years and waiting...)
kenneth "kenny boy" lay

or they might get a "harsh" penalty...
bernie ebbers

just look at this page...
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/features/scandal_s heet.asp?cbsReferrer=www.google.com

the majority of those on that page are NOT in jail, years after their crimes were committed. i understand that justice is slow and these cases are complicated, but still.
now, compare the page of corporate scandals' status with this one about mandatory drug dealing sentences...
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/snit ch/primer/
(scroll down to the mandatory sentences table)

now, who did more damage? the guy coming out of the ghetto, with no father, no education, a lifetime of dissapointment and discrimination, who has drugs in his pocket because that is what everyone else does and that's the only way he sees to make money or the corporate criminal destroyed the financial savings and jobs of thousands of people because he was greedy?

now do you see why i think there some type of fishy business going on? i mean look at the penalties. they fined samuel waskal $4 million dollars and sent him to jail for 7 years. but he got $73 million in compensation in ONE year! plus he'll most likely get out early. so, when he gets out he'll have millions of dollars in the bank

"If Amazon.com says "we're going to have a great next quarter! Two quarters from now, though, we're going to be out of business", people would sell Amazon stock like hotcakes."

yes, but Amazon wouldn't say that. if they were about to go out of business, i would guess that, given what previous companies have done, they would most likely try to cook the books.

"You're telling the daughter of an oil pres/VP and niece of a former US congressman. That's bloody rich. Sorry to ruin your fantasy world, but we don't live in a batman comic."

oh, it's rich alright. so's this.
http://www.senate.gov/~feingold/releases/00/09/200 0921959.html
wow. a "cost of living" increase. and they even set it up so that they don't have to vote for it!
hey, would your uncle pass a law that would put your dad's company in peril? oh, wait, this isn't batman is it?

"It's called economics."

my point exactly. if you notice in my previous post, i said that the reason why we still have the same design...
"it means that because people are still making money off of the engine, they see no reason to change. so, as people are still making money in the oil industry, there is nothing to drive them to change or to question why things are the way they are."

i was simply trying to say that there are plenty of smart people out there and that we could do a lot better than the internal combustion engine. if you sit there and say, "well, we've made a lot of improvments," i would respond, is that good enough? why should we settle for 30% efficiency?

and now, i hope can restrain myself as i respond to this...
"How on earth are these applicable to the oil industry? Heck, you could at least have cited things that were illegal - there's certainly enough of them out there. Oh wait, though, if you had cited companies doing illegal things, you'd then have to cite their punishments, and that would ruin your argument."

are you a moron ?
in case you are, here are some more links...
(warning, some may involve oil companies...)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exxon-Mobil
(scroll down to allegations)

http://www.law.washington.edu/pacrim/abstract/12.2 .htm#Awaiting_doe

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F20 C14FB3B5B0C778DDDAB0994D9404482

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F50 617FD38590C708EDDAC0894D9404482

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/1313246.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/1180985.stm

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F00 E11F63B5D0C738EDDAB0994D8404482

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FB0 71EF83C5D0C778DDDAF0894DE494D81

oh, i got more...
and if you keep responding, you get a lot more.

In the states? none! (source: IEEE spectrum magazine June 2005).

Well, then IEEE Spectrum is not to be trusted. From my state's sample size of 2, half of the Senators are Mechanical Engineers.

>> You should rightly be paid for the original act of creation or performance. Not paid over and over again a hugely inflated price for each damn-near-negligible-cost-to-produce copy thereof.

> But why is this so bad? Why shouldn't the creator continue to be paid for his creation? Everyone says this is a horrible thing, but why is it a horrible thing? Is it just because YOU don't want to pay for something, or is their some grander scheme?

The US Constitution grants the Congress the power to enact laws to "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." (section 8). Note use of the word "limited". Once an author creates a work, getting paid repeatedly, indefinitely, for that work does not incent him to continue to author. If he can just take his one book (or song or invention or whatever) to the bank for the rest of his and his children's children's children's lives, what motive would he have to continue to produce?

Notice how science and art are both represented here. Consider what would happen if universities treated discoveries the same way the **IAs treated media. Research would be impossible. If no one was ever allowed to build on the research and findings of those coming before them without financially compensating hundreds of other scientists in the process, it would be too cost prohibitive to research anything, and we'd forever be living in the bronze age. Why should it be one way for science and another way for the arts?

Now Disney and the **IAs want copyrights and patents to be enforcable indefinitely, because they don't want to have to create something new which would supplant the revenues lost when their copyright protection sunsets. This does not promote or incentivize new creativity. To the contrary, it shuts the door on it.

I like this idea, and think it would be a very useful project (I would sure use it), BUT
don't forget about non-roll call voting. For those too lazy to click the link, basically, US Congress can cast "secret" votes on issues, as in no one knows who voted for or against. Call me cynical, but I think that if a tool like you suggest saw wide-spread use, and actually started affecting the political landscape, we'd see a lot more voice and standing votes. Of course, that in itself would actually be usefull knowledge as it would indicate Congress' intentions towards we the people.

Let's find out who these asshole law makers are and publish their names....

Did the vote divide along party lines?

Close enough for government work. Combining the House and Senate rolls, we have (yea-nay-abstaining):

Republicans: 244-39-2
Democrats: 26-220-1
Independents: 1-1-0
Total: 271-260-3 (1 vacancy)

86% of seated Republicans voted for the bill, representing 90% of the 'aye' votes. 89% of seated Democrats voted against the bill, representing 85% of the 'nay' votes.

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." - President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 Source

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." -Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 Source

"Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members." - Sen. Hillary Clinton, Oct 10, 2002 Source

Be mature about it and give tell him how you feel. He is my state senator and I will talk to him about this.. http://carper.senate.gov/email-form.html

Yes. Carper (and it's not just him - D Senators Landrieau and Almond are in on it, http://www.senate.gov/~landrieu/releases/05/200572 7713.html) swore an oath to uphold the constitution. Carper's been a congressman, governor, and now senator for years, and this is the first time i've seen him violate his oath. But it only takes once. He should resign. If he doesn't, he should be encouraged, politely but unceasingly. Senators are relatively immune when they get caught violating their oath of office. One of the checks and balances of the system is that soldiers and veterans have taken an oath to oppose the enemies of the constitution, foreign and domestic. By continuing to claim the office of senator after violating his oath of office, I personally would consider Carper a domestic enemy of the constitution, who should be actively opposed veterans. For ethical reasons, such opposition should be nonviolent. Perhaps a wave of free online carper-porn would make the point. Perhaps picketing his house would be appropriate. https://ssl.capwiz.com/usatoday/bio/?id=9482&congr ess=1091&lvl=C He lives in wilmington, not sure exact address. Perhaps a national boycott of the democratic party until carper resigns would be the way to go. Each veteran could do something a little different. Realisticly, almost nobody will do anything, but ten people would enough to hound this usurper out of office if they were persistant and clever. Maybe we should just pray for him. Perhaps he's educable.

2. Under the patriot act rules the House is currently renewing, if the government wants to put a tap on your phone records, they don't have to explain to a judge what they're doing. They just have to say "we are going to seize some records, but we aren't going to tell you which ones".

Your elected representatives can't read minds. You have to tell them explicitly how they can best represent you. Big business sure does, why not even private citizens? ;)

Social Security Administration. It is by far the tightest ship we run, and it's been around for decades.

Since the 30's, actually. That said: Examples of Social Security Fraud.

Next Example? This one appears to support my argument more than yours.

Ay-Yi-Yi! Why does everyone keep thinking that Hilary Clinton has it out for every instance of violence or sex in video games?! She has only made two statements on the matter, and has never entered into censorship or video game discussions before now! She's not Tipper Gore people!

Here are her two statements regarding the GTA Hot Coffee fiasco:

First there's her statement regarding this when she first heard about it -

http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/details. cfm?id=240603&&

- the legislation proposal seems a little harsh, but ESA President, Doug Lowenstein, began contacting her after that reply, and later when the mini-game was discovered, Hilary was promptly notified, and here's what she had to say then -

http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/details. cfm?id=241138&&

- and after reading that, I can see she's upset at Rockstar, and frankly I can't blame her! Rockstar deserves to be investigated by the FTC because they are liable for FRAUD by lying about the Hot Coffee content in a public PRESS release! That's a BIG, SERIOUS NO-NO! As for the ESRB, she gives them a warning to keep an eye out for this so that it doesn't happen again, but she makes no motion to try and replace them, and for all intents and purposes, her legislation proposal may have been dropped!

Frankly, I can't see why people are mad at her! Those in the ESA and the game industry are NOT barking at her for what she has said or what she has done.

Like I said, Hilary is NOT Jack Thompson and NOT Tipper Gore or Joe Lieberman, so it makes NO SENSE to lump her in with them in regards to her feelings towards censorship! She never said ANYTHING about that!

~Otaku-Man

Ay-Yi-Yi! Why does everyone keep thinking that Hilary Clinton has it out for every instance of violence or sex in video games?! She has only made two statements on the matter, and has never entered into censorship or video game discussions before now! She's not Tipper Gore people!

Here are her two statements regarding the GTA Hot Coffee fiasco:

First there's her statement regarding this when she first heard about it -

http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/details. cfm?id=240603&&

- the legislation proposal seems a little harsh, but ESA President, Doug Lowenstein, began contacting her after that reply, and later when the mini-game was discovered, Hilary was promptly notified, and here's what she had to say then -

http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/details. cfm?id=241138&&

- and after reading that, I can see she's upset at Rockstar, and frankly I can't blame her! Rockstar deserves to be investigated by the FTC because they are liable for FRAUD by lying about the Hot Coffee content in a public PRESS release! That's a BIG, SERIOUS NO-NO! As for the ESRB, she gives them a warning to keep an eye out for this so that it doesn't happen again, but she makes no motion to try and replace them, and for all intents and purposes, her legislation proposal may have been dropped!

Frankly, I can't see why people are mad at her! Those in the ESA and the game industry are NOT barking at her for what she has said or what she has done.

Like I said, Hilary is NOT Jack Thompson and NOT Tipper Gore or Joe Lieberman, so it makes NO SENSE to lump her in with them in regards to her feelings towards censorship! She never said ANYTHING about that!

~Otaku-Man

I have had it up to here with people knocking at Hilary Clinton for her role in the whole Hot Coffee/ESRB thing. What shocks me most are the people who start talking politics here more-so than ethical standards discussions and GAMES! I came here because I was under the impression that this was part of the Slashdot games section, but apparently I've been hoodwinked and led to the politics part. (Wait, I AM in the Politics section?! How did THAT happen!?)

But no matter, as I intend to NOT discuss politics or anything of the like here, but speak as a student who has been studying the game industry in pursuit of a career there as a Creative Director.

What's a Creative Director you ask? This is the person who is considered the BRAINS of the game, the author of a book or director of a movie if you will! The game is considered this person's baby and when the credits role, this person is usually the first one listed. Right now, we have several different parties thrown in here for what's going on with this event, but the Creative Director is not one of them! So who is involved in all this:

The Game Makers:

Take-Two Interactive
Rockstar Games

The Political People:

Hilary Clinton
Jack Thompson
Leland Yee

The Video Game Lobbyists:

ESA (Entertainment Software Association)
ESRB (Entertainment Software Ratings Board)
IGDA (Independent Game Developers Association)
VSDA (Video Software Dealers Association)
IEMA (Interactive Entertainment Merchants Association)

Quite a few more people on the side of games than I bet most of the folks here expected! Not surprised though as they are usually very quiet in regards to their actions and rarely peak on the headlines, if in the news at all!

But they are there, and they have been challenging legislation left and right in regards to censorship and overly strict legislation on video games.

Hot Coffee is not the current fuss that has the attention of these groups.

The current fuss that's going on is the law in Illinois that requires state enforced labels on video games and places a large fine on stores that sell state-considered "Mature" games to minors. This law is slated to go into effect on the first of 2006, but that gives lots of time for the groups to challenge the law, and most likely win!

http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?st ory=6018

Already similar laws have been overturned in Washington State, Indiana, and Missouri. The laws have been marked as "Unconstitutional" and violate first amendment rights. Rightly so, since treating video games different from movies, books, comics, and television is a major hypocrisy. So why video games? Because it's the newest media to earn the ire of the government because of its "new-ness" and the lack of knowledge held by people in power.

That's not to say that there are no politicians on the side of video games. Quite a few listen to the ESA, ESRB, and take measures as necessary.

Hilary Clinton is NOT an avid anti-video game fanatic like Jack Thompson is. One look at her website, and you can see that she focuses on lots of topics regarding human well-being, and does a lot for her New York constituents. But then what DID she say regarding the video game business then?

http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/details. cfm?id=240603&&

http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/details. cfm?id=241138&&

And that's all she wrote! The fact that this is ALL she has to say on the matter is actually COMFORTING to me as a gamer! She does NOT claim that the ESRB is a faulty institution, and applauds it for taking action on GTA:SA.

I AGREE with the ESRB with their ratin

I have had it up to here with people knocking at Hilary Clinton for her role in the whole Hot Coffee/ESRB thing. What shocks me most are the people who start talking politics here more-so than ethical standards discussions and GAMES! I came here because I was under the impression that this was part of the Slashdot games section, but apparently I've been hoodwinked and led to the politics part. (Wait, I AM in the Politics section?! How did THAT happen!?)

But no matter, as I intend to NOT discuss politics or anything of the like here, but speak as a student who has been studying the game industry in pursuit of a career there as a Creative Director.

What's a Creative Director you ask? This is the person who is considered the BRAINS of the game, the author of a book or director of a movie if you will! The game is considered this person's baby and when the credits role, this person is usually the first one listed. Right now, we have several different parties thrown in here for what's going on with this event, but the Creative Director is not one of them! So who is involved in all this:

The Game Makers:

Take-Two Interactive
Rockstar Games

The Political People:

Hilary Clinton
Jack Thompson
Leland Yee

The Video Game Lobbyists:

ESA (Entertainment Software Association)
ESRB (Entertainment Software Ratings Board)
IGDA (Independent Game Developers Association)
VSDA (Video Software Dealers Association)
IEMA (Interactive Entertainment Merchants Association)

Quite a few more people on the side of games than I bet most of the folks here expected! Not surprised though as they are usually very quiet in regards to their actions and rarely peak on the headlines, if in the news at all!

But they are there, and they have been challenging legislation left and right in regards to censorship and overly strict legislation on video games.

Hot Coffee is not the current fuss that has the attention of these groups.

The current fuss that's going on is the law in Illinois that requires state enforced labels on video games and places a large fine on stores that sell state-considered "Mature" games to minors. This law is slated to go into effect on the first of 2006, but that gives lots of time for the groups to challenge the law, and most likely win!

http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?st ory=6018

Already similar laws have been overturned in Washington State, Indiana, and Missouri. The laws have been marked as "Unconstitutional" and violate first amendment rights. Rightly so, since treating video games different from movies, books, comics, and television is a major hypocrisy. So why video games? Because it's the newest media to earn the ire of the government because of its "new-ness" and the lack of knowledge held by people in power.

That's not to say that there are no politicians on the side of video games. Quite a few listen to the ESA, ESRB, and take measures as necessary.

Hilary Clinton is NOT an avid anti-video game fanatic like Jack Thompson is. One look at her website, and you can see that she focuses on lots of topics regarding human well-being, and does a lot for her New York constituents. But then what DID she say regarding the video game business then?

http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/details. cfm?id=240603&&

http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/details. cfm?id=241138&&

And that's all she wrote! The fact that this is ALL she has to say on the matter is actually COMFORTING to me as a gamer! She does NOT claim that the ESRB is a faulty institution, and applauds it for taking action on GTA:SA.

I AGREE with the ESRB with their ratin

hit her up, too...

http://clinton.senate.gov/contact/webform.cfm

http://clinton.senate.gov/contact/

In the case of video games (for example, Sony Playstation or Nintendo games) and computer software, we use the ESRB, Entertainment Software Rating Board, ratings (EC, E, T, M, and AO) as we make decisions about which products to carry. We do not carry software rated adults only (as rated by the ESRB). As a rule, we do not carry Parental Advisory stickered products.

Maybe you should take a flip through this site http://intelligence.senate.gov/ where the actualy senate Intelligence report is actually located and you can read where the INR and the DO agreed even at the time with Wilson's assessment that all this Niger stuff was bogus. Look at page 73 for the INR for example. Fucking moron.

And if you're still feeling stupid, read Wilson's original New York Times Op-Ed which details what actually happened which you can find reprinted in its entirety at http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0706-02.htm "Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq"

"Conclusions (Excerpted From Full Report)"

Fox is crap and the people who watch it are morons.

He website has an announcement that sounds like she already had the press conference.

and Rush Limbaugh types CONTINUE to promote such a story: The Saddam-9/11 Link Confirmed" By Laurie Mylroie, FrontPageMagazine.com / May 11, 2004 but the FACT is that the US government intelligence community (apart from the administration's loyalty-oathers) was already very skeptical of the meeting way back in 2002. And as far as Bush himself never saying it, you are monstrously false. What part of these statements is unclear to you? See also: June 18th radio address appearing to link the two: "We went to war because we were attacked, and we are at war today because there are still people out there who want to harm our country and hurt our citizens. Some may disagree with my decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power, but all of us can agree that the world's terrorists have now made Iraq a central front in the war on terror"

[...] Although the committee recommended confirmation, floor consideration sparked the first filibuster in Senate history on a Supreme Court nomination.

On October 1, 1968, the Senate failed to invoke cloture. Johnson then withdrew the nomination [...]

Forcing someone to do something against their will was not what Jesus was about.

There a large number of people who call themselves "christians" who have repeatedly demonstrated a willingness to use the might of the Government to force everyone else to live according to the dictates of their religion.

Part of the problem is that practically no one can agree on a definition of what a "christian" really is.

From my observations, a typical member of the religious right would define a Christian as being "someone who belives that the Bible is the literal, inerrant Word of God, and has accepted Jesus Christ as their personal savior." There are millions of people who would be "Christians" under this definition -- but there are many, many "Christians" who don't meet this definition.

From my (admittedly dim) recollections of Sunday School, the Roman Catholic church teaches a more inclusive definition: everyone who has been baptized is a Christian. This definition covers a lot of people who don't meet the more stringent fundimentalist protestant definiton above.

Personally, I believe the rational definition of Christian is "someone who lives their life in accordance with the actual moral philosophy taught by Jesus of Nasareth himself" (as opposed to those, for example, who follow the contridictory teachings of Paul of Tarsus). There are very, very few people on the planet who qualify as Christians under this more stringent definition. You don't see this kind of Christian very often, because they are usually out meekly serving others, instead of making themselves rich and famous by preaching hatred and intolerance on the television while scamming money from their congregations.

I can't hardly imagine a world dominated by lawyers would consider patent reform.

There are no Jedi yet, but if he can resist the temptations of the dark side of the Force, then Obama may become the first! Well, actually I think the late Senator Paul Simon may have been the first... So I guess that makes Barack Obama A New Hope.

they keep electing Orrin Hatch. That alone speaks volumes. Among other things, he's the proud author of the DMCA, the INDUCE act, the PIRATE act (Porno Is Really Awesome To Endorse, apparently), he advocated the destruction of PCs belonging to software pirates with some vaporware virus, and then was caught red handed using pirated software. He claimed that was a mistake made by his staff. When he was caught with stolen Democratic party memos, he claimed that (you guessed it) it was a mistake made by his staff. At best, he's a clueless old grandpa that has no business writing copyright legislation.

"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"

Apparently, not all uses of p2p technology are illegal after all...someone send Senator Hatch a note on this, will ya?

Senator Hutchison of Texas has email form on her website. http://hutchison.senate.gov/e-mail.htm

list of senators from each state and contacts http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/ senators_cfm.cfm

A bit of trivia. I hit the Senate Appropriations site at http://appropriations.senate.gov/releases/pressroo m.cfm, and entered "S-128" as a search term. Result: Cold Fusion runtime struct dump.

I thought everybody should know that you may have just slashdotted the United States Senate Appropriations Committee.

As of 10PM PST, six hours after news first leaked out, we've reached over 4550 messages sent to the 26 senators on the appropriations committee. The median number of emails and faxes per senator is 64; the average is 150.

Patty Murray (D-WA) received over 300 from her constituents on the Broadcast Flag. Kay Hutchison (R-TX) has received over 500 mails warning her of the controversial rider. Diane Feinstein (D-CA) has over a thousand faxes sitting in her inbox telling her not to accept any Broadcast Flag amendment.

And that's not including the telephone calls, which are still continuing.

Hollywood's first chance to slip in an amendment will be at 2PM EST Tuesday, in the Commerce, Justice and Science. Their next opportunity will be the full committeee mark-up at 2PM EST Thursday.

We need to keep the pressure up, but I think it's fair to say that so far this rider is not slipping by unnoticed through the halls of Congress.

If you're in the states below, please call your senator.

COMMERCE, JUSTICE AND SCIENCE SUB-COMMITTEE AND FULL COMMITTEE MEMBERS

ALABAMA Senator Richard Shelby (202) 224-5744
ALASKA Senator Ted Stevens (202) 224-3004
HAWAII Senator Daniel Inouye (202) 224-3934
IOWA Senator Tom Harkin (202) 224-3254
KANSAS Senator Sam Brownback (202) 224-6521
KENTUCKY Senator Mitch McConnell (202) 224-2541
MARYLAND Senator Barbara Mikulski (202) 224-4654
MISSOURI Senator Christopher Bond (202) 224-5721
NEW HAMPSHIRE Senator Judd Gregg (202) 224-3324
NEW MEXICO Senator Pete Domenici (202) 224-6621
NORTH DAKOTA Senator Byron Dorgan (202) 224-2551
TEXAS Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (202) 224-5922
VERMONT Senator Patrick Leahy (202) 224-4242
WASHINGTON Senator Patty Murray (202) 224-2621
WISCONSIN Senator Herb Kohl (202) 224-5653

FULL COMMITTEE MEMBERS

MISSISSIPPI Thad Cochran (202) 224-5054
PENNSYLVANIA Arlen Specter (202) 224-4254
MONTANA Conrad Burns (202) 224-2644
UTAH Robert F. Bennett (202) 224-5444
IDAHO Larry Craig (202) 224-2752
OHIO Mike DeWine (202) 224-2315
COLORADO Wayne Allard (202) 224-5941
WEST VIRGINIA Robert C. Byrd (202) 224-3954
NEVADA Harry Reid (202) 224-3542
CALIFORNIA Dianne Feinstein (202) 224-3841
ILLINOIS Richard J. Durbin (202) 224-2152
SOUTH DAKOTA Tim Johnson (202) 224-5842
LOUISIANA Mary L. Landrieu (202) 224-5824

A TYPICAL CALL

"Hello, Senator _________'s office"

"Hi, I'm a constituent. I'm registering my opposition to
the broadcast flag amendment being introduced in the
Senate Commerce Justice and Science Appropriations
subcommittee mark-up on Tuesday, and in full committee on
Thursday."

(*** You can give your own reasons for opposing the flag
here. Here's a sample: ***)

"The Broadcast Flag cripples any device capable of
receiving over-the-air digital broadcasts. It give
Hollywood movie studios a permanent veto over how members
of the American public use our televisions. It forces
American innovators to beg the FCC for permission before
adding new features to TV. "

"This is an important issue which will affect all
Americans, and should not be inserted at the last moment,
with almost no debate."

"Please oppose the broadcast flag amendment. My name and
address are ___________________."

"Thank you for your time."

• Senator Richard Shelby (chairman) (R-AL) (202) 224-5744
• Senator Judd Gregg (R-NH) (202) 224-3324
• Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK) (202) 224-3004
• Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM) (202) 224-6621
• Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY) (202) 224-2541
• Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) (202) 224-5922
• Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS) (202) 224-6521
• Senator Christopher Bond (R-MO) (202) 224-5721
• Senator Barbara Mikulski (Ranking Member) (D-MD) (202) 224-4654
• Senator Daniel Inouye (D-HI) (202) 224-3934
• Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) (202) 224-4242
• Senator Herb Kohl (D-WI) (202) 224-5653
• Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) (202) 224-2621
• Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) (202) 224-3254
• Senator Byron Dorgan (D-ND) (202) 224-2551

• Senator Richard Shelby (chairman) (R-AL) (202) 224-5744
• Senator Judd Gregg (R-NH) (202) 224-3324
• Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK) (202) 224-3004
• Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM) (202) 224-6621
• Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY) (202) 224-2541
• Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) (202) 224-5922
• Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS) (202) 224-6521
• Senator Christopher Bond (R-MO) (202) 224-5721
• Senator Barbara Mikulski (Ranking Member) (D-MD) (202) 224-4654
• Senator Daniel Inouye (D-HI) (202) 224-3934
• Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) (202) 224-4242
• Senator Herb Kohl (D-WI) (202) 224-5653
• Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) (202) 224-2621
• Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) (202) 224-3254
• Senator Byron Dorgan (D-ND) (202) 224-2551

List of Senator's phone numbers here.

Nope, slashdotted to hell. But you can get them from the source.

I didn't think you could legislate on an appropriation bill? Is this for real? Its against the rules of the Senate (rule XVI) http://rules.senate.gov/senaterules/rule16.htm

I was under the impression it was ALL politicians are influenced by *

I share your disappointment with most of our elected officials, but there are exceptions. Russ Feingold was the only senator to vote against the PATRIOT Act in 2001. He's truly an admirable leader.

Final talks in a patent infringement lawsuit involving the popular BlackBerry e-mail messaging device have reached an impasse, the two companies involved said Thursday, raising the possibility that the BlackBerry service could be banned from the United States market.

What I don't get is how the Blackberry, being so popular with members of our legislature, wound up on the wrong side of a patent lawsuit. To wit: Legislative Branch Subcommittee Hearing on the FY05 Budget [2004]:

In the past two years, the Senate provided BlackBerry devices and updated electronic pagers to Senators and key staff. The number of BlackBerry devices in use at the Senate continues to expand. Every office has a Senate "Group Alert" telephone system and approximately 1,000 telephones throughout the Senate are connected to the System.

Can't imagine someone informing members of the Senate they have to turn in their favourite devices because they're no longer legal.

That's not their first duty, however:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

If we're going to complain about this, can we at least call it by its correct name? It is not the patriot act, nor the Patriot Act, nor the PATRIOT act.

It is the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001: The Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act.

And for those who complain that the Republicans need to be voted about because of their abuse of power, don't forget that the Act was approved 98-1 (with one abstaining) in the Senate .